The Sun. — London, England, 1836-05-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The Times of yesterday puts us strongly in mind of a puddle in a storm. It is prodigiously agitated, and vapours at a mighty rate. And wherefore all this commotion ? We can discover no other cause than the simple circumstance that the Reformers of Dublin, feeling deeply aggrieved by the refusal of the Tory Peers to grant even to the capital of Ireland a reformed system of civic government, have issued a circular to the friends of Reform thrOughout the country, in which circular a string of resolutions, adopted at a late meeting of the citizens of Dublin, is embodied, together with a short formula of petition to the House of Commons, for the convenience of those persons in the provincial towns and rural districts who might wish to express their feelings to the popular branch of the Legislature upon a matter seriously affect inc, the interests of Ireland, but are very likely not acquainted with the correct mode of wording their petition, or with the routine form of addressing the assembly to which they would wish to direct their prayer. Surely, in acting thus, the Reformers of the Irish capital committed no offence, either against society or the State, for which a public journal is jus tified in abusing their conduct as "sneaking scoundrel ism." If we are not grievously mistaken, " scoun drelism" is a term applicable rather to the diatribe of the Times than to the proceedings of these patriotic, consistent individuals, whose adherence to principle, as much as their devotion to the cause of civil liberty, has provoked the rabid hatred of the reckless apostate. The journal in question labours, in another article, to convince the people of England that the Tory Lords and Commoners have gratuitously insulted the Sister Country ; for what other effect can b© produced on any rational mind by a thesis which goes to prove that the Ministerial Bill for -the reform of Corporations in Ireland, and the "amendments" of Baron Lyndhurst, are critically the same ? If the two measures are identical, then all the time and money that have been spent in discussing and printing the amendments have been thrown away. If the two measures are the same in effect, then whatever has been said of the one may be predicated of the other ; and if, as the faction have alleged, the Ministerial Bill would foment agitation, and fan the flames of party feud in Ireland, equally pernicious to the peace of society must, upon the showing of the Tories themselves, be the precious amendments propounded in the corruptionist cabinet at Apsley-house. In asserting the identity of the Ministerial measure and the Copley scheme, the Tory writers speak truth or falsehood ; •if truth, then what legitimate pretence can the faction advance for negativing the Ministerial Bill, and thus convulsing Ireland from the centre to the extremities ? If, on the other hand, the Tory assertion is untrue, grossly, glaringly untrue, and so it is—then there must be some reason for propagating the erroneous notion that the measures are similar. That reason is obvious. The faction perceive the danger of the position in which they have been placed by their hostility to Mi nisters and their hatred of popular rights ; and all their ingenuity is now taxed, and their entire energies are directed to produce on the public mind in this coun try an impression that the original Bill by which Corporations would be reformed, and the Tory " amendments," by which they are altogether and for ever abolished in Ireland, are, after all, one and the same ! Fortunately the people of England are not the stolid blockheads the Tories would repre sent them ; and unless they were the veriest dolts in the universe, they could not fail to perceive, even in the statement of the case as concocted by the hireling scrilie of the corruptionists, irrefrarrable evi dence of the complete dissimilarity of the two measures. On a future occasion we will present our readers with an analytical view of the Bill and amendments, in order to point out their discrepancies. To-day we shall con fine our remarks to the " contrast" manufactured in Printinghouse- square. THE MINISTERIAL BILL. THE PROPOSED MEASURE. " AU Acts, charters, &c., " All existing Corporations re;;ealed, that are inconsistent in Ireland to be abolished from with tic, Bill (i. c.), in effcet, the Ist or January, 1837." an ah,lition of existing- Cur porationi, with a view to re construction.,' The passages marked in italics suffice to demon • strate the complee variance between " the Ministerial Bid" and " the proposed measure." BILL. AMENDMENT, " Sheriffs to be appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant (ex cept in Londonderry, to which the Crown appoints), zrd Co roners to be appointed by the Council of the borough." The Bill, as originally framed, left to the Town council the election of sheriffs in counties of cities and counties of towns ; but at the instigation of the Tories —to silence their complaints, to stop their cavilling Ministers, before the measure left the % Commons' House, consented to deprive the Irish corporations of this privilege, and to transfer to the Viceroy the power of nominating sheriffs in cities. This change was made to please that base faction who arraigned the Viccroy for interfering with the lists of the Orange Judges, and nominating of his own choice the sheriffs in certain shires ; and who, following up their turpi tude, now retort upon Ministers those very concessions which were, we think imprudently, made to their own clamour ! It is seen, however, that by the Bill as it Nvent to the House of Lords, the coroners of cities and towns corporate were to be appointed by the Town councils ; while the " amendments" obliterate the very name of Town-council, and transfer to the Crown the function that was to be discharged by that body. DILL. AMENDMENT. " The Lord Lieutenant, on " The Lord Lieutenant, by the petition of the Council, to by advice of the Privy Coun grant separate sessions. cd, to grant separate sessions. The public do not need to be informed that all the difference imaginable exists between a town. council, upon whose petition the Viceroy was to grant separate sessions, and the Privy Council, by whose advice the Lord Lieutenant is, according to the Copley scheme, to be guided. The Ministerial Bill intended •to in vest power in the people ; the Tory measure treats the people as if they were cyphers or villains, and increases the already too great power of the Crown in Ireland. And these two measures are still identically the same ! But why consume space in exposing the pal pable and essential difference between the Bill, as read a first time in the House of Lords, and as returned from that House to the Chamber of Representatives of the people ? The .?vlinisterial measure preserved municipal institutions in forty-nine cities and towns in Ireland ; the Copley measure sweeps every Irish corporation out of existence. The Mi nisterial Bill provided for the election of mayors aldermen, and town councillors in forty-nine corporations ; the Copley Bill deprives of ex istence, now and for ever, town councils, aldermen, and mayors, by a dash of the pen. Yet we are told, with a grave countenance, that the two measures— that which renovates and that which obliterates—are the same 1 To sum up shortly—the preamble of the Ministerial measure has been changed ; sixty-six ,of its clauses have been so mangled as not to leave an original feature discernible by their framers ; twenty seven new clauses have been introduced, each of them repugnant to the spirit and hostile to the purpose of the Bill as it entered the House of Peers ; and of the 144 clauses composing the Ministerial measure, eight only have escaped the destructive paws of Baron Lyndhurst ; so that, to use the critically correct lan guage of the Marquis of Lansdowne , " The effect of the Bill, as it now stands, and as it has been adopted by the House of Lords, is, that the corpo rate system is for ever annihilated in Ireland, and that the title of the Bill—for the preliminary words are unneces sary—should, insttad of being A Bill for the regulation of Municipal affairs in Ireland,' be A Bill for a bolishing the Corporations of Ireland, and making the Lord Lieute nant of that country, for the time being, corporator sole thereof.'" Yet there are writers who have the cool audacity to tell the world that the Ministerial Bill differs really in nothing from the nefarious substitute of the corrup tionist Destructives. Nay, their impudence carries Jtravagant as ser ti on t h at t h ey h ave , b y e, e14,L.,„ evelrlKl7.l nisite " contrast" to whi c h we h ave a d verte d, 4 " d...pevond the possibility o f cav il t h at t h e Mi- C..;. • aaisters..wer6tbey :tilt) in legislating for Ireland su m. d, and acted, npon the suggestion, that in princi .ple and in, practice a clearly and a strongly marked dif ference and distinction should be made between the Irish on the one:hand, and the English and the Scotch " Sheriffi and Coroners to b,: appointed by the Grown." on the other," and not the Tory Lords who have re fused the benefit of Municipal Reform to Ireland, nor the Tory scribes who have dared to avow that in their opinion Ireland is not fit for the enjoyment of those salutary institutions, and of that share of civil liberty, possessed by the inhabitants of Great Britain.—Morn zng Chronicle. There is a burst of indignation from the revolutionary journals, loud enough to, be quite natural, if the feeling were real, at the charge against their party of propos ine. to " destroy" the House of Lords. " We destroy the House of Lords !" they exclaim ; " what an in famous Tory calumny ! We have no wish but to re form it, by rendering that assembly more compliant with the will of the people." Here, then, is the ques tion fairly propounded. If this class of politicians in sist, by their schemes of alteration in the House of Lords, that they are going to effect a decided " amend ment" in that body, as a Legislative Chamber, our an swer is—a flat contradiction. Their plan is no amend ment at all. The Reform which they have suggested must be taken in its literal sense, as a forming, over again—a reconstruction, with materials differently scraped together, adjusted differently, designed for, and made subservient to, different ends, altogether differently cemented. We do not speak without book, in submitting to the general sense of • our coun trymen this ciew of the desperate and frightful extremities to which the abettors of the fac tion, now in office, conceive themselves to be re duced. The text which we quote was that of Mr. O'Connell's speeches at all those meetings throughout the north of England and Scotland, at which, in the course of last autumn, the scattered Members of the Whig interest were summoned, by orders from the Treasury, to attend and receive the new canon of le gislation from the Agitator's own lips. The same text is that for the exposition and practical enforcement of which the letter addressed within these few days to the people of England by Mr. Daniel O'Connell was ex pressly published—namely, a House of Lords to be elected by the people—that is, by those whom Mr. O'Connell assumes to be the people. Now, when the " Reformers" tell us that they must have a House of Lords obedient to the will of the "people," we might be ' satisfied with stating it as the intent and direct Ipurpose of the constitution of England, that the House of Lords should invariably have •a will of its own. If the House of Lords be good for nothing but to echo the sentiments of the House of Commons, and to obey the man dates of those by whom the House of Commons is elected, why have any such incumbrance as a second chamber ? Why not simplify the machine of the Government—since mere simplification passes 'among sages like Joseph Hume and Daniel O'Connell for wisdom—why not boil down Parliament into a uni form jelly, and serve it up in a single dish ? Those who would make the Mouse of Lords elective ought to assemble Lords and Commons in the same room, after the notable fashion of Lord Brougham in his chapter on free conferences. The spirit of the project is manifestly to get rid of all pretence for revision, or prolonged deliberation, between the proposal and the enactment of laws, however complex or intricate the subject, however fatal and irretrievable the consequen ces of one precipitate error. But what sort of House of Lords is it that Mr. O'Connell requires to generate by this democratic process ? Not, assuredly, one which shall oppose the O'Connell scheme of policy for Ireland. He avows as much when he de clares that he will have a repeal of the Union, (still repeal) or an equivalent for it—viz., an elective House of Lords, whereby he admits that an elective House of Lords, that is, a House of Lords which inclined to vote for all the measures of the Melbourne Cabinet, would answer his (O'Con nell's) purpose as well as a repeal of the Union ! It needs no more to inform us of what nature that pur pose is. In fact, no House of Lords would do the work demanded of it by - the Radicals which was not chosen by a constituency at least as nearly approximat ing to universal suffrage as that which returns the Ra dical majority in the House of Commons. Any high qualification as to property, were it 'but 501. a year, would return a House of Lords (or Comnions) Con servative in the proportion of 10 to 1. Then, what do these new pranks of the agitating clique amount to ? A broad, glaring, palpable, gross, democratic tyranny, to be established on the ruins of a mixed constitutional monarchy—a substitution of one estate for three—a delegation of Peers as well as Commons, by the British Destructives and the Popish priests of Ireland, to be nicknamed a Parliament, making Whigs their tools, and law and property, civil and religious liberty, the internal peace and union of the empire, their avowed and deliberate victims. That such plots arc stupid frenzies, and the decla mations in support of them idle pueiilities, we are well aware. When brought to the test, either of - ar'- guments or blows, none are more at case than we are as to the issue of any coining conflict. Yet it is good to show what game is now afoot. A yell must be got up like the hired hoolaloo of an Irish, Papist burial. And all other topics having been tried and failed, the House of Peers is now. assaulted. What comes next ? —The King. As Mr. Daniel O'Connell has already notified that his protection of the Whig Ministry is contingent on their doing "justice to Ireland,'.' which signifies augmenting his individual Power, and that the alternative wiebe, either a repeal of the Union, or an elective House of Lords—this last turning out abortive, what, we say, comes next ? Why, thew re..;. mains but one other pis aller for our Cabinet-maker— to wit, an elective Monarch. The animus of the fic tion is pretty clear, and so, we trust, will prove to be its impotence.—Times. The Ministerial writers have been desired by their paymasters and patrons to "go the whole hog" in abusing us for exposing the disgraceful fraud which the Ministers are attempting just now to practice upon the public for the advancement of their own selfish and sordid views. This was of course expected by every body, and few will be surprised to find that the agents and instruments of such people as our Ministers are proved to be, have acquitted themselves of the task im posed on them in a manner that must continue to insure them pity for their stupidity, which is their chief misfor tune, and scorn for their mendacity, which is their ruling vice. They would have their readers believe that we have shown that the Ministers and the Lords concur, to a certain extent, in their views relative to municipal insti tutions in Ireland ; and that, having demonstrated this, we have, on the one hand, blamed and reproached the Ministers for approximating to the views of the Upper House, while, on the other hand, we have extolled those views as prudent, statesmanlike, and wise. If the readers of these scribes he as doltish as the scribes themselves are dishonest, they will believe the senseless tale. Our readers, however, know perfectly well that we have been guilty of no such unfairness, whether from dulness or design, as that which the blockheads would persuade the boobies they address constitutes the gist of our argument. What we have done in this matter is told in few words. First, we have stated the indisputable fact, that the so-called Government, their mendicant master, O'Connell, and the go-be tweens of the Government and the Beggarman— namely, the Ministerial Press—are endeavouring to to run down the Lords on the ground that their Lord ships have legislated for Ireland with reference to municipal institutions in a manner different to that in which they have legislated for Great Britain. Se condly, we have stated, and proved beyond the possi bility of successful cavil, that the Ministers themselves had so legislated in the first instance—that their Irish Municipal Bill was essentially different from the Eng lish and Scotch Municipal Bills,—and therefore, that if any blame be attributable to that species of legisla tion, it attaches at least as completely to the IVlinis ters as to the House of Lords. As a consequence, we have inferred, what is as clear—quite as clear—as either of the other two facts --namely, that none but knaves would have cried up the Ministers and cried down the Lords, for no other reason than that the Lords have improved upon an example which was set by the Ministers themselves. Upon this statement of facts, we are quite willing to go to the country.— Times. There are certain political games which may be played once, or perhaps twice, with success, but which will net answer the purpose oftener. They ,who play the game of Irish agitation ought to remember thi s . The boy in the fable, who cried " wolf" so often, ended at last by receiving no attention when thejwolf really ..11iNILLIE-111--‘ Arm -a.m. a ... -- - - THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1836. was upon him. Whether a similar fate is likely at any time to repay the Irish agitators for their many deceptions, we need not now stop to consider ; but we feel very confident that the present attempt to make a disturbance in the empire, by crying aloud, and not only complaining, but threatening, when no real grievance oppresses them, will be treated by the Eng lish public with the cold and contemptuous neglect which it deserves. The Irish Roman Catholics " agi tated" for emancipation, and they obtained it ; they also " agitated" for Parliamentary Reform, and they obtainefit. But if they suppose that either of these were obtained merely by their agitation—if they imagine that the British nation had regard only to their complaints, or to their serious aspect of disturbance, when it granted them these political rights, they greatly deceive themselves. It was the general conviction throughout Great Britain that these rights ought to be granted ; a conviction ante cedent to, and independent of, their " agitation," which caused them to be granted ; and if no such con viction had existed, they might have agitated until the " crack of doom ;" or, at all events, until the national character and spirit of Great Britain had undergone a total change, without obtaining these concessions. The Irish agitators are, therefore, quite mistaken in sup posing that whatever they want they can force from Great Britain, by producing a great and annoying dis turbance. If they want to succeed they must begin by persuading us that either on general or particular grounds—either on the ground of universal and ab stract political justice, or the ground of their own pe culiar deserts—they have a good right to what they ask. With regard to the Irish Municipal Corpora tions, we have, on former occasions, shown the rea sons that Mr. O'Connell's Bill—for such we are jus tified in calling it, though adopted by the Government —would not be an act of political justice, but the con trary. It would not be a gift of liberty to. the people, but a gift of additional power to a set of political leaders who have grossly abused the power already in their hands ; neither would it be an act of justice with reference to the particular merits of those who demand that it may be made law, for their conduct has been such as to merit punishment, rather than favour. Hitherto that which has been conceded, has not been to them, but to their cause ;. and most fully have they shown, that if to them, and not to their cause, the concessions had been made, they would have been most rash and unjustifiable concessions. They have no merits of their own to plead. They have not been grateful— they have not been even honest ; but turning every good o given them into a weapon of offence, they clash their arms thus acquired, and think to frighten us by the sound, into whatever terms they may choose to dictate. The agitators will find, however, that Eng land has profited by her experience, and will laugh to scorn any attempt to extort from her fears that which her sense of right does not prompt her voluntarily to afford. The machinery of the new agitation has been sufficiently exposed. It has not even the excuse of being the outpouring of erroneous popular sentiment. It is not the work of the people, but of a few persons, who use the ignorant masses as the instruments of their own advancement to notoriety and power. It is absurd to call such petitions as will be procured from Ireland on the subject of the Corporations Bill, the petitions of the people. We have seen that the people are directed by the Committee of agitators in Dublin to prepare these petitions. Were the people really aggrieved they would need no prompting o f th is ki n d. But there is in truth no public feeling or intelligence among the Irish Ro man Catholic people. They are kept in that state that the agitators may do with them what they will ; and if the petitions are evidence of any thing, it is merely this, than they who have got them up can wield at will the fierce democracy in Ireland. They are no evidence that the democracy has any intelligence or even will of its own. If an absolute tyrant got possession of the British Government, and Mr. O'Connell and the priests found it their interest (as very probably they would) to agitate in his favour, they could procure addresses to the tyrant just as readily as they can procure peti tions against the integrity of our free Constitution. The Irish masses are like masses of gunpowder, which may lie harmlessly enough, or may be usefully applied; but the agitators arc the men who carry the burning brands, and explode this material, where they think it will do most mischief. To attribute political de sign, or political thought to the " millions," of whom Mr. O'Connell talks so glibly, is as erroneous as it would be attribute design to the powder. which the engineer explodes. The agitators have an un doubted right to all the odium, and all the responsibi lity, of whatever may seem to be done by the Irish Roman Catholic people ; and we trust that the British public will not withhold from them one jot or tittle of this right. But whatever strew or semblance of reason there might be in Irish " agitation" to promote an Irish question by the ordinary means of British legislation, we are sure that no such resemblance can be found in the monstrous audacity of the present attempt. No thing less will now serve the unprincipled leaders of these unintelligent masses, but a revolution in the Br:- tish Constitution itself. They must, forsooth, judge for us ; and, because they are not satisfied with our House of Lords, agitate for its overthrow. If the Mi nisters of the Crown are mean and spiritless enough to countenance these attempts from such a quarter, we are sure they will meet with no sympathy from the British people. Such advocacy were enough almost to bring reform itself into disrepute, and certainly will not tend to make sober Englishmen in love with revo lution. Ministers must give the English public very little credit for observation if they think that the coun tenance shewn to Mr. O'Connell's present attempt will pass without notice, and very little credit for national spirit if they suppose that being noticed, it will not be resented.—Morning Herald. Lord Palmerston appears to be very appropriately represented at Madrid by the resident British Minister there, Mr. Villiers. Whoever is able to persuade himself that the Chief of the Foreign Office in London is an able servant of the Crown, and administrator for the public, would find little difficulty in coming to a similar opinion respecting the agent at Madrid. On the other hand, they who cannot avoid the conviction that our Foreign Minister-in-Chief is a man of little wisdom and 'much vanity—a man very weak and very obstinate—very haughty and imperious where he is openly and honestly opposed, yet capable of being made a tool of by any one who condescends to the trouble of humouring his foibles—they who have these convictions concerning the Minister-in-Chief will scarcely fail to think similarly of his deputy at Madrid. As a politician, Mr. Villiers is a Lord Palmerston in a small way, and that must be something very small in deed. For two or three years of Lord Palmerston's distinguished career in the Foreign can o et iffilwecaes same h p e er w s soaonsrat personally. dupe and the instrument of th e F renc h G overnment. conveniencel'a' l Talleyrand made that ifs him,gold-headed politically, The French Government no longer requires the good offices of Lord Palmerston, and has latterly takenb pains to play upon his weakness. The consequence is, that his Lordship is no longer so devoted to the " intimate union as he once was. But his friend at Madrid has got but a little beyond the commencement of that course which his Lordship has so characteristi cally completed. M. de Rayneval has just succeeded in out-manceuvering Mr. Villiers as completely as ever M. de Talleyrand did the Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The only difference is that th e Frenchman at Madrid, less expert than the great master of his pro fession in London, has allowed Mr. Villiers to see that he has been outwitted, while the Noble Lord in Downing-street did the work of the Fre e n ,dt c h h ins M gtat but i e n s is m te a r n , and suffered himself to be duped over and over again, his einwhu belief app thatyuncon unconsciousness tthhaet best -dressed about town, and the least vulgar. While Mendizabal was Chief Minister at Madrid the English interest was confessedly all-powerful; and most undoubtedly, whatever may have been the value of that influence, Lord Palmerston ought in reason to have had it, for he has made the British nation pay dearly enough for it. To say nothing of the money lent by British sub jects, under the circumstance of the favour and pro tection shown by our foreign department to the Go vernment of Madrid, we have furnished in munitions of war, and in services as watchmen along the coast, quite enough to have deserved all the advantage which our paramount interest with that Government could pos sibly afford ; but that is gone. In spite of all the assist ance which his radical Privy Councillor (for such he has at Madrid) could give Mr. Villiers, he has been over come—his Prime Minister has been obliged to give way, and M. de Rayneval, and the Government which he represents, are clearly in the ascendant. The causes of this change are said to be immediately con nected with military matters. The assistance which Great Britain has afforded having been effectual only to plunge the Government at Madrid more deeply in debt, the Queen-Regent and her General-in-Chief are said to be of opinion. that nothing but the military assistance of France will restore the North of Spain to obedience, and that nothing was less likely to lead to that assistance than the evident connection of the Prime Minister, Mendizabal, with the English party. From whom this latter opinion. was derived it is not difficult to (mess ; and it may have been perfectly safe for M. de guess to go thus far without committing himself by any promise that such assistance would ac tually be given. As for Cordova, it has long been understood that he despairs of dislodging Don Carlos, except by a great additional force, or by an attack from the French side of his position. It may also be pre sumed, without much risk of error, that Cordova is desi rous that the overthrow of Don Carlos, if it ever does take place, may not be attributed to the exertions of foreign mercenaries, under the command of an officer who, in the army of his own country, holds a very subordinate rank. The English Minister ial papers having heard something of Cordova's concern in the late change at Madrid threaten him, after their manner, with " disaffection" in his army. There is some incaution in this. If Cordova's troops be held by so slight a rein of dis cipline that suspiciim of his interference in politics at Madrid will cause them to become disaffected, what sort of dependence can be placed upon them under any cir cumstances ? But the insinuation that the suspicion of any disinclination towards the foreign mercenaries would shake the influence of Cordova with his soldiers ' is without a particle of foundation in truth or even pro bability. On the contrary, nothing would bind them to him more than a firm belief that he hated those fo reigners, who eat the provisions and receive the pay which the Spaniards think they ought to have all to themselves. But will France give the assistance which Cordova—supposing him really an enemy of Don Carlos—wishes to have ? Very proba bly she will not ; but in the meantime the Eng lish influence is overthrown, and the encouragement which it gave to the progress of the democratic prin ciple is arrested. France—that is Louis Philippe— will do nothing with respect to Spain, except for the ultimate object of preventing democratic disturbance. Hitherto the position of Don Carlos has stood in the way of such Republican movements as would have been made, were it not that he must be attended to first. Louis Phillippe and his crowned friends - in the North understand this very well ; and they will not allow a change to be made, except under some arrangements which will secure Spain against the Republicans. Bri tish ascendancy, under the present direction of British affairs, would not favour such arrangements, and there fore that ascendancy was, at all events, to be got rid of. The Proem adores, however inclined to storm at first, may be brought to reason, or, if found pertinacious, they may be dissolved. If there be any energy left in the de,facto Government of Spain, there are abundant means in the hands of Government to get a majority by a new election.—Morning Post. The Tories are already awed at the consequences likely to result from their attempt to destroy popular influence in the municipal government of Ireland— and their partisans of the press endeavour to shift the responsibility from the shoulders of their patrons to those of the Ministers, whose liberal intentions they have for a while marred by labouring through a mire of falsehood, sophistry, and shameless audacity, to show that " if there is to be a quarrel—riot—a dis turbance—danger—destruction"—the cause is attri butable to the 'Reformers, and not to their opponents. Amongst other fallacies, equally atrocious, it is asserted that the measure substituted by the . Lords for the Ministerial measure of Irish Municipal Reform, and which does not contain more than eight out of one hundred and forty-one clauses which constituted the original Bill, is identical in principle with the measure which it has substituted. This assertion is too flagrant to require refutation, and need be mentioned only to excite contempt. The main principle of the Mi nisterial measure was reform—that of the Lyndhurst measure is abolition. Are these principles identical Let the present outbreak of popular indignation re spond to the query. The Peers themselves sanctioned one principle at the second nailing of the Bill, and in Committee rejected the principle of their adoption, and introduced one diametrically opposed to it. The Bill of the Commons abolished the old Corporations of Ire land, with a view to reconstruction—but that of the Lords proposes the retention of the greatest nui sances of the old system, such as the preservation of the franchise to existing freemen, and the se curing to the old corporators the plunder, pay, and emolument of which they are now in possession. To prove their consistency, the very party wh o opposed the Irish Constabulary' Bill, on the plea of its vesting excessive patronage in the Lord Lieu tenant, now propose to place the fifty-one corporate towns which are to be deprived of their charter, under the irresponsible authority of that functionary, who is also to have the nomination of the seven Commis sioners, Recorders, Registrars of Courts of Conscience, Registrars of Courts of Record, Sheriffs, Justices, Clerks of the Crown, Clerks of the Peace, Police men, Constables, Coroners, Clerks of Markets, Weigh master, Assay-masters, Butter -tasters, &c., &c. This alone is sufficient to prove the total disregard of cha racter and political principle which distinguish the abettors of the Lyndhurst Corporation Abolition Bill —and yet these outcast politicians do not blush to talk of honesty—as if the term was not defiled by their very utterance of it. But the day of retribution is fast approaching, and those who now profanely appeal to justice, will be smitten with a judgment as righ teous as their transgressions are inquitous.—Morning Advertiser. VIOE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT. POWYS V. MANSFIELD. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL made a novel motion in this case. The question, it will be recollected, was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of ten thousand pounds under the will of Sir John Barrington, in addition to a sum of ten thousand pounds, settled by Sir John on the mar riage of his niece with the plaintiff. The cause was heard in November last ; but his Honour reserved his judgment till the 22d of January last, when he pronounced a decree, bearing that date, in favour of the plaintiff, which is now the subject of an appeal. Sir John and Lady Simeon, and Mr. Simeon their infant son, were defendants. On the part of Mr. Simeon a common infant's answer had been put in. At the hearing the evidence of Mr. Hearne, the solicitor for these defendants, was adduced, which tended to prove that the plaintiff, at the time of his mar riage, was aware of Sir John Barrington's will, and of his intention to give his niece one sum of ten thousand pounds, and that the plaintiff said on that occasion he would prefer a deed to the will, as the former was irrevocable. This evidence was rejected, on the ground that it had not been put in issue by the answers of the adults. It was then tendered on the part of Mr. Simeon, the infant ; but his Honour held it was equally inadmissible on his behalf. The decree having in the usual manner reserved to Mr. Simeon six months to show cause against it after be should come of age, and be served with a copy of it, the present motion was now made on his behalf for liberty to file a new answer, and set up a now defence to the bill. Mr. Simeon was of age on the 7th of February last. The arguments upon the rights of an infant defendant in such a case as this occupied the Court the whole day. Mr. KNIGHT opposed the motion. His HONOUR considered the reservation in the decree in favour of Mr. Simeon as amounting to nothing, it being the fact that Mr. Simeon was of age when when the decree was pronounced. But he would reserve his judgment for a week, to allow the cases to be examined. KING'S BENCH.-WEDNESDA Y. HICHCOCK V. COKER. Lord DENMAN delivered the judgment of the Court in this case. This was an action brought upon an agreement by which the defendant, who had been in the employ of the plaintiff, a druggist at Taunton, had entered into an agree ment not to carry on that business within three miles of that town, or to pay the plaintiff 5001. The defendant subsequently left the service of the plaintiff, and set up in business as a chemist and druggist in the town of Taunton. The plaintiff upon that brought his action to recover the 5001. The Jury found for the plaintiff. An application had afterwards been made to the Court to arrest the jadg• ment. The Court, after taking time to consider, thought that this agreement was illegal. The judgment must there fore be arrested. -- - POLICE INTELLIGENCE. MANSION-HO USE. A female, named Sarah Slow, respectably dressed, and about thirty years of age, was brought, in the custody of John Forsyth the officer, before Sir PETER LAURIE, who sat for the Lord Mayor, charged with having committed a forgery under rather extraordinary circumstances. Mr. Bush, the solicitor to the Committee of Bankers for pro tection against forgeries and frauds, attended for the prose cution, and Mr. Humphries appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Bush, in describing the case, said that the prisoner called herself Mrs. Hutchinson, but it was ascertained that her 'name was Sarah Slow. Sir PETER LAURIE desired to know from the prisoner what her name was ? Mr. Humphries—There is no occasion for her to tell who or what she is. The prisoner —I shall leave the business in the hands of my solicitor. Mr. Robert Milner, of the firm of Bailey, Milner, and Co., mercers, St. Paul's Church-yard, deposed, that on the 25th of April, a person who to the best of his recollection was the prisoner, obtained of him a check for the sum of Si., in exchange for eight sovereigns. After having had some conversation with one of the shopmen, and paid for some articles which she purchased, she asked witness whe ther he could oblige her with a check for the 81. for gold, as she wanted to send the money into the country, and the transmission of it in cash would be awkward. Witness acquiesced, and wrote down the lady's name and address, viz., Mrs. Cunningham, No. 1, Connaught-terrace, Edg ware, Paddington. There were many ladies in the shop at the time, but witness believed her to be the female who got from him his check for the money. Mr. HUMPHRIES—Were you sent for to see her yester day? Witness—l was. Mr. HUMPHRIES—And did you not say when you first saw her that she was not the person ? Witness—l did. She was much excited, but when I heard her voice I was satisfied that she was the female who had had the check, and I expressed myself strongly to that effect. Mr. John Lent, a clerk at Messrs. Hankey's banking house, on the 25th of April, paid three 201. notes, and 201. in gold to a female, who presented him a check for what appeared to him to be 801., drawn by Mr. Milner. The notes were numbered and dated, 6,682, March 25, 1836 ; 6,683, March 25, 1836 ; and 7,769, March 29, 1836. He had a strong impression that the prisoner was the person who presented the check. He now believed that a forgery had been committed in the check by.the addition of the let ter " y," and the introduction " 0" after 8, by which the ori ginal sum for which it was drawn was altered from 8/. to 80/. Mr. John Chamberlain, shopman to Mr. Howell, of No. 79, Gracechurch-street, mercer, deposed that the prisoner called at the shop on the 25th of April, between four and five o'clock, and made purchases to the amount of 71., for which she paid with one of the 20/. notes now produced. She was remanded for a week. MARYLEBONE. Yesterday John Gearhani, the fellow who, on Monday last, was charged with having in the most audacious man ner robbed a gentleman of his silver watch, was again placed at the bar before Mr. RAWLINSON for final examination. The particulars of the robbery have already been detailed in the papers ; it will be recollected that the gentleman gave his name and address Peter Simpkins, 24, Curzon street, Mayfair. Mr. RAWLINSON determined on going into the case, notwithstanding the mysterious gentleman, who has assumed to himself the soubriquet of " Peter Simpkins," was no where to be found, though the most diligent search had been made for him. The evidence taken on the prior examination was again repeated, which, although pretty conclusive against the prisoner, was now confirmed by an additional witness named Hibbert, a milkman, residing at 16, Hill -street, Regent's Park, who saw the robbery committed, and ran after and succeeded in capturing the prisoner, who in his flight, fear ing he was likely to be taken, threw away the watch with such force that it passed through the window of a house, and was picked up in the parlour. The watch was here produced, and the prisoner was fully committed to Newgate, to take his trial for the offence. CHARGE OF ASSAULT.—Yesterday Mr. John Savage, the well-known proprietor of the Mechanics' Institution, as it is called, in Circus-street, New-road, was brought on a war rant before Mr. Rawlinson, charged with having on Sunday evening last violently assaulted a Mr. Thomas Barnes, gar dener, ( f 68, Earl street, Lisson-grove, whilst listening to a lecture delivered by Mr. M'Connell, at the above institu tion. The complainant for some time past had been in the habit of attending the Sunday evening lectures of Mr. M'Connell, at the defendant's house. About nine o'clock of the evening above specified he proceeded there as usual, accompanied by his wife, and they took their seats contigu ous to the platform or stage on which the lecturer harangues his audience. It was the custom of persons to "give their orders" for something to drink while the lecture was going on, and he accordingly called for a pint of half and half, which was brought him. A short time after. this he had occasion to leave the lecture room for a short period, when on his return he encountered the defendant at the door-way, who in the most peremptory tone told him he should not re-enter the room that night. Complainant. told him that he had left his wife and beer there, but that he did not wish to re main long there, and he then pushed by Mr. Savage and resumed his seat by his wife. In a few minutes the de fendant, who had followed him into the apartment, stood up, and leaning his back against the platform . (addressing the persons assembled), said, " My friends, thi s man (pointing to complainant) is the paid agent —yes, he is the hired spy, of the Tories, and I insist upon his being turned out." Defendant then seized him by the collar, and twelve or fourteen of the audience instantly surrounded him, and while one of them brandished a bludgeon over his head, the rest seized him by the arms, legs, and other parts with such violence, that his coat was torn to pieces, and he 'was apprehensive that his limbs would share the same fate. The most tremendous uproar ensued, and a young man named Collins, seeing that he was in danger of being killed, went out and procured a constable, and he went quietly to the station-house. The defendant did not - make his ap pearance till twenty minutes afterwards, and then, as he did not press any charge, complainant was allowed to re turn home. Mr. RAWLINSON told the defendant that he had heard quite enough to convince him that the house was most dis orderly and improperly conducted, which would be borne in mind by the Magistrates on next licensing day. He then ordered him to find bail, should the complainant think proper to carry the affair to the sessions. THAMES POLICE. CHARGE OF MURDER.—Yesterday, Enzanucl Antonio, a tall man of colour, was brought before Mr. BALLANTINE, the sitting Magistrate, charged with the wilful murder of Jacob Kettles, a boy, at Zanzebar, on the eastern coast of Africa, in December last. Joseph King, a seaman, the only witness at present in London who saw anything of the transaction, deposed that while the ship was lying off Zanzebar, the crew received permission to go ashore, and while they were in the town, some words occurred between the boy and the prisoner. Antonio began ill-using the deceased, and knocked him down ; the boy got up again and ran away ; Antonio ran after him and knocked him down again, and while he was down the prisoner knelt upon him, but whether it was on his side or his breast he could not say. The boy was suf fering great pain when he got up, and could scarcely w a lk. He was taken on board as quickly as possible, where he died. Mr. BALLANTINE—How came you not to interfere when you saw Antonio ill-using the lad ? King—He could talk the tongue to the natives, and I thought he would have killed me, and I was afraid. Mr. BALLANTINE, after reading over the depositions of the crew taken at St. Helena, asked if any one attended for the accused, and on being answered in the negative, re manded the prisoner for a week, and directed Mr. Evans to use every exertion to bring forward the other witnesses at present in England, who saw the murder committed. TIIE RIVER AND SHIPPING.-011 Saturday there was a very large and important arrival of shipping from the East and West Indies, and China, in the river, which gave to the Thames an unusually gay and animated appearance. Be tween one and three o'clock 20 sail of large ships from Australia, the East Indies, and China, in addition to a nume rous fleet of coasters, steamers, and vessels from foreign ports, passed Black wall, and either anchored in the river or were hauled into the West India, London, or St. Katharine's Docks. The Lady Hunyerford, and Duke of Bedford, from China and the East Indies, with teas, silks, spices, &c., and the Westmorland, from Van Diemen's Land, came up the ricer in succession, in tow of steam-vessels, and were all safely taken into St. Katharine's Dock between four and five o'clock. Those large ships and their cargoes may be estimated in value at not less than 500,0001. sterling. The Lady Flora, and the Morley, from Madras, also came up the river just before, laden with rich cargoes, and were hauled into the London and West India Docks. We have not had so many and such important arrivals in one day for some time. The recent enlargement of the channel in the upper and lower Pools was found to be highly beneficial on Saturday. An action to recover da►nages for false imprison ment brought by a gentleman named Franks against Sir Roger Greisley, was set down for trial in the Sheriffs' Court on Tues day. It appears that the worthy Baronet had his pocket picked at the Olympic Theatre on the 6th of February of a silver snuff-box, and suspecting that it was stolen by the plain tiff, he gave him into the custody of the police. Sir Roger having since ascertained that the plaintiff was innocent of the charge, made an apology, and consented to a verdict being taken against him for 304 MELANCHOLY OCCURRENCE• Tuesday morning an inquest was held in the Sussex County Hospital, on the body of Mr. S. Stokes, a proctor in Doctors' Commons (of the firm of Dyk e and Stokes). F. Riddlestorffer, aged 12 years, deposed that on Satu h r; day night, about a quarter to ten, he was in one of t o shops in East-street-house, when he saw a gentleman lo k ing into the shop ; witness turned round to get some thing to supply a customer, when he heard a loud cry, a nd turn: . ing back saw blood running from the same gentleman throat on the pavement ; witness then saw two gentlemen' holding the one who aeared to have cut his throat ; pp witness being frightened ran in doors, and a lady in the shop nearly fainted. James Saunders, landlord of the New Ship Hotel, stated: that on Friday night he saw a concourse of people round his stable-yard, and on inquiring what was th e matter, wee informed that a gentleman had been improperly annoying a boy ; witness made inquiries of the boy, who said it was true, and witness therefore said he would have the person taken into custody. Witness desired the boy to go home, and afterwards saw the gentleman peeping rou nd the yard on which witness went for an officer, who did not come for an hour after, so that nothing was then done. Next daY witness saw the gentleman sitting in his lodgings, drink ing port wine, an holding it up as though inv itin g so m e . person in the yard opposite. Between seve n and eighL in the evening witness again saw him lo iterin g about: the corner of the street, and in passing acro ss the yard witness saw the boy, who said" I can't go home a s this men is waiting for me," Witness then said, " Jere, as youve done your work, I must see you are not molested ; if you are, I will have him taken into custody." Witness was then coming round to see what would take place, when be d met Mr. Ridley, to whom he imparted his suspicions an asked him to walk round with him. They watched the gentleman and the lad round the cliff. Dirently the ge a r tleman saw the lad, he ran up to him, squeezed his hallo, &c. Witness walked round the Albion to the Chain as Plc' esplanade, and soon afterwards saw the lad, whom be ked where the gentleman was ? He replied, "I was so frightened I was afraid to stop with him." Witness advised the lad to go home, but soon afterwards saw him accosted by the gentleman near Lamprell's baths, and thel uld not saw the gentleman endeavouring to clasp Mr. Ridl e y begging forgiveness as it was a propensity he co u, master. After that witness heard Mr. Ridley lad " what has this gentleman been doing to you. ? T he boy said he had been pulling him about and putting some money in his pocket • the gentleman then said to Ni r. ley " for God's sake ' don't expose me, for I have a w ife and five children." Mr. Ridley replied " more shame for Yen' you are a disgrace to the world." Witness saw n othio i , more of deceased till he heard a cry " be has cut his th roat ; say to tbe witness, who was on the opposite side of the r oad, ra n across to see if that was the case, and saw some one cla s P, ing deceased's throat to stop the blood ; Mr. Ridley" W ren one way for a doctor and witness another. Deceased appeared greatly excited ; his face, I t 33ini" was tarred when I saw him by Lamprell's baths. R. Stokely said that he had been annoyed by the de ceased for some time past, and mentioned the circun2sulaee to Mr. Saunders. [This person's deposition was to the same effect as t hat of the preceding witness.] The evidence of the medical attendants was then received' after which two persons, one of whom had known the ae" ceased for sixteen years, gave it as their opini6n that the deceased had lately been suffering greatly from depres sion of spirits, and that he was not of sound mind. All the evidence having been gone through, the Jul Icr turned the following verdict—" That deceased, while t, bouring under cerebral affection and temporary deraoi ment, inflicted a wound in his throat, from the co nabio effects of which he subsequently died."—Brighton &Per' LIVERPOOL, MAY 24.—The sales of cotton t ivg t u be day amount to about 3,000 bags, principally American scriptioilis._ There is no alteration to notice in prices ; market is firm ; 600 bales are taken on speculation: The Municipal councillors of Carmarthen haV l ' applied by letter to Lord John Russell to know the amount salary that should be fixed for the Recorder, received an n °- swer that it should be from 50/. to 80/. per annum. Two days ago, a shoemaker in the Rue de Pontoise; near the Garden of Plants, in Paris, from some cause, bee' suddenly so enraged with his wife, that, though in the Pad sence of other persons, who interfered, he beat her on th e 1,08. with a heavy shoe till he killed her. Almost at the same I °ll ,, nute, in the Rue de Champ de l'Allouette, in the same (I°,l*, ter, a young woman was stabbed in several places wit r.. poignard. The assassin escaped, and she was taken to asu eon's. Her wounds are severe, but not considered dangerous' She cannot or will not give any account of the cause o f this attempt upon her life. FALMOUTH, MAY 21.—His Majesty's steame r Spitfire, Lieutenant Kennedy, came in this morning with 0 6 Mediterranean mails, and having on board 45 passenge rs ' among whom are three Persian Princes, sons of the presen t Schah, and who embarked at Malta. Their ostensible visit 0 , this country is stated to be one of curiosity, but it is suppo se their mission has other ob,jects in view. On arrival at Gib raltar, they were most desirous of proceeding through Sl ° and France to England ; but the Governor, Sir Alexander Woodford, successfully dissuaded them from this intention, and during their stay at the Rock paid them such attention as he considered their rank demanded. On its being 10(1 911 they were on board the steamer, Captain Clavell, of the troea, paid his respects to their Royal Highnesses, and on tu' A l disembarkation the frigate complimented them with a g,5,,-10 salute. We understand they proceed at once for Bath. dates of the steamer's departures are as follows :—Corfut' oc l, of April, Fiscardo the Ist, Patras the Ist, Zante the Malta the sth, Gibraltar the 14th, and Cadiz the 15th insti .T ' a On the 12th instant the Eclipse, Lieutenant Forreste r, sm 4 e j from Gibraltar for this port, and the Tartarus steamer !To arrived there on her way to Malta. Commander Codringt 71„ (son of Sir Edward) has also come home in the Spitfire, b a t es ing received his promotion whilst in Command of the Orst.3o at Gibraltar. Our squadron was cruising off Malta on sth instant. 14 LADIES' GOLD CHA I The weight is given by comparison with the weight of Sove,r3,:s. being more easily referred to than if stated in ounces an° orlcea The quality of the gold is warranted equal to any that is 14 into articles of this description. Price of the Cable Pattern ;E: s. d. Same weight as 3 sovs. 4 4 0 Ditto as 4 sovs. 1 5 0 Ditto as 5 sovs. 6 6 0 Price of the above Patterns, wil every e. cl. 0 Same weight as 3 sovs. 5 5 0 Same weight as 6 s o "' 9‘' D; ^ so vs. 9 in 10 0 8 o or Matted Ring Pattern.X d. f !: 0 Same 'freight as 6 s ous. 7 / 0 Ditto as 7 sous. 6 9 0 Ditto as 8 toys. , on th bright star ornaments cu. - Ditto - as 4 sovs. 6 6 0 1 Ago as . Ditto as 5 sovs. 7 7 0 Ditto as TIIE NEW FLAT GOLD WATCHBESS°v. °CP I 1 The price in gold cases, with accurately-finished vertical , 7 0 movements, warranted ................................... ...k:4 Ditto, with well-finished horizontal movements, in double bottomed engine-turned cases, jewelled, with s ilver 9 9 0 dial, warranted T. COX SAVORY'S. Working . Silversmith * Is * and *— .le s eller, 47, Cornhill, London. h selected N.B. A variety of Second-hand, Silver Watches may --. from, all at Two Guineas each, vrarranted. .**** BIRTHS. Ara- On the 21st inst., the wife of the Rey. W. G. Bayly, 4)1 —1 hurs O t, Sussex, of a u'n the 21st inst., d i a n gater. Bulstrode-street, the lady of P. 1 4g—le ton, Esq., of a son. On the 20th inst., at Fintray House, Aberdeenshire, the il°ll. La On dy F the 2orbe 3d inss of Cr t. a , Migievars .r, John of a-s Barber, of No. 18, 18, l'ee-r1 on. t square, of a g dauhter fo On the 20th inst.,. in Dublin, the lady of R. M. Poor e, -Ds c l'' a daughter. Mrs. James Livermore' On the 24th inst., at 26 , Mincing -lane, of a daughter. On the 24th inst., at the Earl of Harewood's, in Hanover-Kgare' the Lady Louisa Cavendish, of a son. On the lith ult., at Munich , Mrs . D. Watts Russell, o f a son' _ _ MARRIED. On he 21st inst., at St. Mary's, Lambeth, Bertrand L a : t ~ N ewin reche, Esq of Stoke gton, to Anna Maria , eldest daughte' of C. Nairne, Esq., of Lambeth-terrace. On the 21st inst., at St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, Mr. John r 23 gh'll.l'.r ner, of Danvers-street, Chel sea, to Mar y Elizabeth, only dau of Mr. J. M. Adams, of the Strand. On the 21st inst., at St. George's, Hanover-square, Charles. Wombwell, Esq., of the 10th Hussars, to Charlotte, eldest datighte' of T. 0. Hunter, Esq. On the 19th inst., at Bathwick Church, CharlesDZ Esq. of the Madras Army, third son of the late Bev. 11° 11- landson, D.D.. Vicar of Warminster, Wilts, to Ellen, second daa ter of C. F. Sorensen, Esq., of Bathwick-hill. Rowlandlovin• D/ED. On the 22d inst., in Norfolk-street, Lake, Esq., of Falmouth, merchant and banker, also ill yer town. On the 19th inst., at Broxbourne, Laurie,E'cl.' Herts, Robert aged 81. Strand, aged.....a7o,yorifiltihli Colonel On the 19th inst., at Eton, John Charles, eldest son of the la te Johnson, of Walbury Essex,aged 13. On the 22d inst., was drowned in thae-river Thames, near Roth by the upsetting of a sailing boat, Mr. Edwin Good, many years in the confidential employ f M srs lills and 0 Cs • Ed wife of Oxford-street. h• w On o the 22d inst., in York-terrace, Regent's -park, Suan_nor, f D'Oyley Saunders, Esq. , o f A k 13ryan, near Yo Kt S tan aged 61. c, free' On the 23d inst., William Charles, fourth sou of J. ling, - Esq., aged 10. belt On the 21st inst., at Chorley-wood, Herts, the Rev. R° Con' Ingham, of Rose-hill, aged 52. West' On the 21st inst., Joseph Smith, Esq., of acre-street, minster, aged 84. I te of On the 21st inst., at Bathford, James Hare Jolliffe, Esq. , a Ringsdon House, Somersetshire. • hie 0f On the 24th inst., Harriet, the wife of Mr. William 31at , Friday-street. Oliet - John On the 23d inst., at Clapham, Surrey, aged 77, son, Esq. Esq.' On the 23d inst., at West Ham, Essex, John Griffith, aged 80. ____.------yrr_-_,-2_"r2-.___—_— ----------- of S °. London : Printed and Published by 141URDO YOUNG,e __too( 112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, strand, in th CO of Middlesex.